President Obama will hold a news conference Tuesday to announce his decision on Afghanistan. That will be a full 90 days after the general of his own choosing demanded 40,000 troops be sent to Afghanistan for the safety of the soldiers there now.
By sending more troops, the President will fulfill a promise he repeated many times during the campaign. For example, July 20, 2008 he said that Afghanistan’s situation was “urgent” and that he would immediately send at least 30,000 troops “immediately” if he could. (see post.)
No matter which way the President turns, this war is trouble for him. It is deadly for our troops.
–The president is expected to order 35,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. His general, Stanley McChrystal, wanted 40,000. Why does the President feel the need to “pare” his general’s request by this random amount? Penny-wise and pound-foolish?
–The extra 35,000 troops will not be sent immediately. In other words, the Obama “surge” in Afghanistan will not be a “surge.” It will be a slow trickle. If the president is still blaming George Bush for “dithering” in Afghanistan, why is Obama doing more of the same?
–While adding more personnel to Afghanistan and bringing the total of American forces to 100,000, the president will also be outlining his “exit strategy” in the region. Does this show we are “in” Afghanistan to “win”? Why send more men in, if we are also saying we want to leave soon?
What will the pacifist liberal Democrats do now? Support the troop surge and face the wrath of anti-war bongo-beating at the polls next year? Or create party “schism-icide” and desert a president who is foundering anyway? It’s the kind of mess that only Barack Obama can create. As he cynically wooed voters last year by trying to “appear” to be a moderate, and “appearing” to be fighting terrorism, he set up the queasy, divisive day of reckoning that comes this week.
Democrats are in hyper-spin cycle. They have no consensus among them. Anti-war protestors are probably making new posters as we speak. But who will they be chanting about now?
Just in time for the Obama newser this week, Sen. John Kerry(D-Mass.) is releasing a Senate Foreign Relations committee report which says Al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was “in our grasp” in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, just after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. The report blames the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in particular, for missing the chance to capture Bin Laden by not amping up military forces. On its face, the Senate report seems to back a troop surge. Does this mean “Senator Flip-Flop” Kerry supports the surge? Or he does until he doesn’t?
According to a tally by the London Times this weekend:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is balking on a troop surge. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, another liberal Democrat from the San Francisco bay area who sits on the House “Intelligence” Committee, wants to know “why” we are involved in Aghanistan. Rep. David Obey(D-Wis) wants to create a new tax to pay for the war. The surcharge would be an extra 1% tax on people who make under $150,000 per year, and up to 5% on people who make over that amount.
(Liberals really love the idea of having a specific “war-tax” because they think it will turn more voters against involvement in this war or any war, any more.)
How Barack Obama will find the words to make more war in Afghanistan, and yet appear to be ending American involvement and what his party will do to support him or not, shows just how far gone our foreign policy is under this administration.
This is not leadership. This is putting Americans in harm’s way in a mountainous, impenetrable rockpile which has never been a country. Afghanistan has been nothing but unbundled tribes for centuries. There might be a way to root out terrorists there. Being indecisive is not the way.
This president is inviting the world to wage war against us. Barack Obama can’t have it both ways. He is not fooling anyone. Good people are dying while he plays word games at the podium.
As of Friday, 849 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan since involvement began in 2001.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Jon Landers commented on your post: “We know trouble is coming when the President refuses to use the word victory. “
Clint Cox commented on your link: “I like your blog..You are indeed part of the new media!”
Gene commented: Poor Obama, trying to finish up Bush’s mess in ‘Stan and everybody is against ANY action that he has discussed.
Matthew sent you a message. ——————–Subject: For those who are not political, tea party, etc I am sorry for sending this if that is the case please let me know, and I apologize again.I had to say this. WE need men like Gen Sherman, Patton, “Black Jack” Pershing, Arthur or Douglas MacArthur; a John Wayne or a Clint Eastwood; a Caesar, Constantine, or Charlemagne; A Michael Collins, or a William Wallace.I am not, nor was not an enlisted soldier, medical reasons kept me from enlisting, but I would have enlisted (after I graduated from College so I can become an officer) even though my parents would not hear it. When commandeering a squad, brigade, detail, fleet of the entire U.S. military. Surrendering is not an option, loosing the war should never be talked about, if we enter a war, we better finish it; I would march an army into Hell itself and approach Satan himself if need be-that is the type of person that is needed. If and when we do pull our troops, the memory of those who died, will die for no reason (if not in vain) only to please those who cannot physically fight for what they believe in-their way of life. “If you do not want to fight, then get out of our way or we will make you move.” That is a mantra the military and all those who support it, should remember when dealing with anti***. If they are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem! Enough of that rant!Where will this era of resistance and tea parties get us . . . I don’t know, but it will never go away. What is needed is a spark by a group of individuals that can have their voices heard over the cackles of the elite that are driving this country: ideas have to resonate from the top, not from the masses where they are drowned out. In order to be effective, people on the inside are needed, or tearing apart the barrier that exists between the Washington/New York/Chicago/Boston etc beltway and the People. A local store owner has to become a representative, a local doctor has to become a Senator, the CEO of a successful and respected business must be President. (To kill a snake you must first chop off its head)-this is a figure of speech, I am not condoning murder for the Hell of it. Thank you for your time.
{ 1 trackback }